IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v8y2023i8p133-d1219341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leveraging Return Prediction Approaches for Improved Value-at-Risk Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Farid Bagheri

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Cagliari, Via Ospedale 72, 09124 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Diego Reforgiato Recupero

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Cagliari, Via Ospedale 72, 09124 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Espen Sirnes

    (School of Business and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Breivangvegen 23, 9010 Tromsø, Norway)

Abstract

Value at risk is a statistic used to anticipate the largest possible losses over a specific time frame and within some level of confidence, usually 95% or 99%. For risk management and regulators, it offers a solution for trustworthy quantitative risk management tools. VaR has become the most widely used and accepted indicator of downside risk. Today, commercial banks and financial institutions utilize it as a tool to estimate the size and probability of upcoming losses in portfolios and, as a result, to estimate and manage the degree of risk exposure. The goal is to obtain the average number of VaR “failures” or “breaches” (losses that are more than the VaR) as near to the target rate as possible. It is also desired that the losses be evenly distributed as possible. VaR can be modeled in a variety of ways. The simplest method is to estimate volatility based on prior returns according to the assumption that volatility is constant. Otherwise, the volatility process can be modeled using the GARCH model. Machine learning techniques have been used in recent years to carry out stock market forecasts based on historical time series. A machine learning system is often trained on an in-sample dataset, where it can adjust and improve specific hyperparameters in accordance with the underlying metric. The trained model is tested on an out-of-sample dataset. We compared the baselines for the VaR estimation of a day ( d ) according to different metrics (i) to their respective variants that included stock return forecast information of d and stock return data of the days before d and (ii) to a GARCH model that included return prediction information of d and stock return data of the days before d . Various strategies such as ARIMA and a proposed ensemble of regressors have been employed to predict stock returns. We observed that the versions of the univariate techniques and GARCH integrated with return predictions outperformed the baselines in four different marketplaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Farid Bagheri & Diego Reforgiato Recupero & Espen Sirnes, 2023. "Leveraging Return Prediction Approaches for Improved Value-at-Risk Estimation," Data, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:8:y:2023:i:8:p:133-:d:1219341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/8/8/133/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/8/8/133/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marius Lux & Wolfgang Karl Härdle & Stefan Lessmann, 2020. "Data driven value-at-risk forecasting using a SVR-GARCH-KDE hybrid," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 947-981, September.
    2. Georgios Sermpinis & Jason Laws & Christian L. Dunis, 2015. "Modelling commodity value at risk with Psi Sigma neural networks using open-high-low-close data," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 316-336, March.
    3. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Herman Mørkved Blom & Petter Eilif de Lange & Morten Risstad, 2023. "Estimating Value-at-Risk in the EURUSD Currency Cross from Implied Volatilities Using Machine Learning Methods and Quantile Regression," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Jie Ding & Nigel Meade, 2010. "Forecasting accuracy of stochastic volatility, GARCH and EWMA models under different volatility scenarios," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 771-783.
    6. Arian, Hamid & Moghimi, Mehrdad & Tabatabaei, Ehsan & Zamani, Shiva, 2022. "Encoded Value-at-Risk: A machine learning approach for portfolio risk measurement," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 500-525.
    7. Marius Lux & Wolfgang Karl Hardle & Stefan Lessmann, 2020. "Data driven value-at-risk forecasting using a SVR-GARCH-KDE hybrid," Papers 2009.06910, arXiv.org.
    8. van Wezel, Michiel & Potharst, Rob, 2007. "Improved customer choice predictions using ensemble methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 436-452, August.
    9. Perry Sadorsky, 2021. "A Random Forests Approach to Predicting Clean Energy Stock Prices," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Jisoo Yoo & G. S. Maddala, 1991. "Risk premia and price volatility in futures markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 165-177, April.
    11. Robert Engle, 2001. "GARCH 101: The Use of ARCH/GARCH Models in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 157-168, Fall.
    12. Christian Dunis & Jason Laws & Georgios Sermpinis, 2010. "Modelling commodity value at risk with higher order neural networks," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-600.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buczyński Mateusz & Chlebus Marcin, 2018. "Comparison of Semi-Parametric and Benchmark Value-At-Risk Models in Several Time Periods with Different Volatility Levels," Financial Internet Quarterly (formerly e-Finanse), Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 67-82, June.
    2. Trino-Manuel Ñíguez & Javier Perote, 2012. "Forecasting Heavy-Tailed Densities with Positive Edgeworth and Gram-Charlier Expansions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 74(4), pages 600-627, August.
    3. Zhang, Ning & Su, Xiaoman & Qi, Shuyuan, 2023. "An empirical investigation of multiperiod tail risk forecasting models," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Halkos, George & Tzirivis, Apostolos, 2018. "Effective energy commodities’ risk management: Econometric modeling of price volatility," MPRA Paper 90781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ghorbel, Ahmed & Trabelsi, Abdelwahed, 2007. "Predictive Performance of Conditional Extreme Value Theory and Conventional Methods in Value at Risk Estimation," MPRA Paper 3963, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Julia S. Mehlitz & Benjamin R. Auer, 2021. "Time‐varying dynamics of expected shortfall in commodity futures markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 895-925, June.
    7. Marta Małecka & Radosław Pietrzyk, 2024. "A spectral approach to evaluating VaR forecasts: stock market evidence from the subprime mortgage crisis, through COVID-19, to the Russo–Ukrainian war," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 4533-4567, October.
    8. Asmerilda Hitaj & Cesario Mateus & Ilaria Peri, 2018. "Lambda Value at Risk and Regulatory Capital: A Dynamic Approach to Tail Risk," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, 2017. "Is CAViaR model really so good in Value at Risk forecasting? Evidence from evaluation of a quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts obtained based on the: GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(," Working Papers 2017-29, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Timmy Elenjical & Patrick Mwangi & Barry Panulo & Chun-Sung Huang, 2016. "A comparative cross-regime analysis on the performance of GARCH-based value-at-risk models: Evidence from the Johannesburg stock exchange," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 89-110, August.
    11. Karol Kielak & Robert Ślepaczuk, 2020. "Value-at-risk — the comparison of state-of-the-art models on various assets," Working Papers 2020-28, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Marcin Fałdziński & Piotr Fiszeder & Witold Orzeszko, 2020. "Forecasting Volatility of Energy Commodities: Comparison of GARCH Models with Support Vector Regression," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Cifter, Atilla, 2012. "Volatility Forecasting with Asymmetric Normal Mixture Garch Model: Evidence from South Africa," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(2), pages 127-142, June.
    14. Chlebus Marcin, 2017. "EWS-GARCH: New Regime Switching Approach to Forecast Value-at-Risk," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 3(50), pages 01-25, December.
    15. E. Lorenzo & G. Piscopo & M. Sibillo, 2024. "Addressing the economic and demographic complexity via a neural network approach: risk measures for reverse mortgages," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Demiralay, Sercan & Ulusoy, Veysel, 2014. "Value-at-risk Predictions of Precious Metals with Long Memory Volatility Models," MPRA Paper 53229, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Takahashi, Makoto & Watanabe, Toshiaki & Omori, Yasuhiro, 2016. "Volatility and quantile forecasts by realized stochastic volatility models with generalized hyperbolic distribution," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 437-457.
    18. Marco Rocco, 2011. "Extreme value theory for finance: a survey," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 99, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    19. Chuliá, Helena & Garrón, Ignacio & Uribe, Jorge M., 2024. "Daily growth at risk: Financial or real drivers? The answer is not always the same," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 762-776.
    20. Torben G. Andersen & Tim Bollerslev & Peter Christoffersen & Francis X. Diebold, 2007. "Practical Volatility and Correlation Modeling for Financial Market Risk Management," NBER Chapters, in: The Risks of Financial Institutions, pages 513-544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:8:y:2023:i:8:p:133-:d:1219341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.